This is the latest post in a
series about Bertrand
Russell's essay
Why I am not a Christian, in which I run through his various
arguments and show that for the most part (there are a few exceptions)
they either don't apply to
classical theism, or they don't apply to any form of theism. The
first part of Russell's essay discussed the existence of God; the second
part the moral character and wisdom of Jesus. In this post, I discuss the third
section of his discussion of Jesus' character. The question is this: was
Jesus a uniquely good man; the best of all men? Indeed, was He a good man
in general?

Russell made the point in an earlier section that he is not so much interested in the
historical Jesus, but in Jesus as described in the gospels and New Testament.
It is, after all, Jesus as portrayed in the gospels who Christians revere.
As a Christian, I would
accept that the Jesus of the gospels is an accurate (albeit undoubtedly
incomplete) portrayal of the man who walked the earth. A secular critic
(or liberal Christian critic, which amounts to pretty much the same thing)
would say that the gospels are a late account embellishing whatever
historical kernel started Christianity off, with most of the gospels
reflecting the prejudices of the church at that time. In other words, the
gospel accounts have little or nothing to do with the historical Jesus
(which parts are viewed as historical and which parts myth largely depends
on the prejudices of the scholar in question; Christian liberal scholars
have the habit of re-making Jesus in their own image. This is largely
because there is no real internal evidence that the various parts of the
New Testament are later embellishments, so without evidence the only guide
these liberal scholars have is prejudice). That, however, is not the
question at hand. Christians worship the Jesus of the gospels, so it is
the Jesus of the gospels we need to discuss.

The question is was Jesus as recorded in the gospels moral? Therefore
for this exercise, we assume that the gospels provide an accurate testimony,
to the best precision permitted by the usual ambiguities from literary form,
language, parable, lack of details concerning the wider situational context,
and interpretation (these ambiguities are present in
every written text, not just Christian ones; they can be minimised through
meticulous scholarship but not avoided). We assume for the sake of this
question that there is one reasonable interpretation of the gospels
which is self-consistent and accurate in how it portrays Jesus' deeds,
teachings, and beliefs. So the question becomes is there any description
of an event in His life
where there is no valid interpretation of the passage where Jesus' actions
or beliefs in that circumstance can be considered ethical.

Russell has a serious problem which he needs to overcome before presenting
his evidence, and which he
doesn't really discuss. How do we define goodness? His claim is that Jesus
is not perfectly good, or at least that there have been people who are morally
superior to Jesus. So he must first have established some measure of goodness against
which Jesus falls short. So where does he get this standard of goodness
from? There are two
possibilities: 1) there is an objective definition of goodness, which
we can in principle discover just as we can come to an objective understanding
of mathematics or physics; 2) definitions of goodness are only subjective,
so people can legitimately disagree about it.

Classically, goodness can be defined as being fit for purpose (the definition
ought to be a little more nuanced than this, but this slightly simplified
version gives the general idea).
This definition accords with our experience; when we talk about a good teacher,
a good salesman, a good sportsman, or a good argument, we mean that the
teacher, sportsman or argument is fit for purpose, as a moments reflection
will reveal. Moral goodness
is seen as a subset of goodness, considering rational animals such as ourselves
in and of themselves. A teacher is a rational animal plus something else;
the something else provides the purposes related to their teaching
(this part isn't controversial), but
equally (it is claimed) there are standards that come from just being a
rational animal (or human being).

So where does this purpose inherent to mankind come from? There have only
really been three serious possibilities proposed.

It arises from fundamental principles which it would be irrational to
deny, such as the principle of non-contradiction or that an objective
ethics should be universal. This is the Kantian solution.

The purpose arises as the result of an external mental will. We can then ask
how we know whether that will would be good, which leads us to a
regress which can only terminate with a will that couldn't be other
than what it is and yet which influences and guides material objects.
This can only be the will of God. This is the divine command solution.

Natural purposes arise from tendencies which are inherent to the
type of being. So just as muons have the tendencies to decay into
a neutrino and W- Boson, or acorns have the tendency to
grow into oak trees, so do rational animals have certain tendencies which
follow from the nature or definition of the species. For example, to
be rational is defined (in part) as a being which has the tendency to
learn knowledge and reason logically. An acorn is defined (in part)
as something that has to grow into an oak tree. Note that beings are
defined by their tendencies. We don't start with observed properties,
deduce from those the form (what the being is) and then try
to induce from that what its purpose is (what the being ought
to be). We start from a tendency (from which we derive a purpose and thus
the standard of goodness, the ought), figure
out the forms which would naturally fulfil that tendency (the is),
and then from the form compute the properties of that class of beings,
which we compare against observation. So both rationality and being an
animal are defined by certain tendencies. These tendencies can be used
to derive a list of characteristics which all rational animals possess.
We can compare ourselves against that list, and conclude that we are
rational animals. Therefore the standard of goodness we derive from the
defining tendencies of rational beings and animal beings also applies to us.
This is the Aristotelian or Natural Law solution.

These are, I think, the only options. An objective standard of goodness
has to arise from rational principles alone, an principle wholly external to matter
(though also rational) which
exhibits movement towards an aim or goal (and external to matter means
that it must be immaterial; and a immaterial tendency towards a goal
means by definition that it is a will), or something which is at least
in part arising from the nature of the being (albeit also also based on
rational principles and possibly also linked to an external will, if
there is an external will sustaining the nature of that being).

Kant's approach provides a necessary condition for any objective ethics,
but it is not sufficient to give a unique answer. As an atheist, Russell
can't support divine command theory for obvious reasons. (The other
objection he might raise is the Euthyphro dilemma, which is
also easily answered once we
think about each horn of the dilemma from first principles and definitions).
The Natural Law
or Aristotelian approach depends on the existence of final causality,
which as a modern philosopher Russell would reject (the rejection of
final causality being the defining feature of modern philosophy). Equally,
it has been
argued that if beings have inherent tendencies, then that directly implies
the existence of God.

So the modern atheist philosopher has a bit of a problem with regards to
ethics. It doesn't matter what structure you build on top of it (whether
a duty theory,consequentialist theory,
virtue theory, or so on).
Every ethical theory needs as a first principle a standard of goodness.
There is no point saying that people ought to act to maximise happiness or
minimise suffering unless you can first prove that happiness is always a
good or suffering always an evil.
Indeed, this problem has been given the name of the
Naturalistic
fallacy, and within the context of modern philosophy it is widely
regarded as insoluble. Classical philosophy, of course, avoids the
problem by allowing for final causes.

So if Russell can't posit an objective ethics, he has to suppose that
either moral values are subjective or that they are illusionary. If
they are illusions, then obviously he hasn't got the particular moral
case against Jesus that he wants to argue. So what if they are subjective?

For example, Russell was very much a sexual libertarian: do what you like,
as long as it is consensual. Jesus was very much a sexual conservative:
do not even glance lustfully at someone outside of marriage. (How would Jesus have
defined marriage? No explicit definition is recorded in the gospels, so at
one level it might look like we are reduced to guessing. However,
there is a common definition of Marriage, widely accepted up until very recent times, including
by Jesus' own culture and the culture founded by Jesus' disciples. Jesus' own
teaching is consistent with this definition, so we can be justified in
assuming that He would have accepted it. The only places where the definition I supply here differs
from that of Jesus' own second temple Jewish culture was in the words
indissoluble and single,
and both of those additions are taken directly from Jesus' teaching. Marriage is
defined as an indissoluble union between a single man and a single woman for the purpose of
procreating and raising children. Note that the institution is defined
by its purpose, not by the fulfilment of the purpose. The purpose is then
used to derive the allowed forms of marriage. The purpose is the same even if the
couple fail to achieve it or are incapable of achieving it due to infertility.
There is a difference between purpose and capability.).
But if there is no objective principle underlying his own ethics, then how can
Russell say that he is right and Jesus wrong? All he is doing is putting
his own opinion against God's, and saying that his flights of fancy are more rational than
God's wisdom. This is not a rational position to take.

So when Russell wants to argue that Jesus is immoral, what he means is
"Jesus and I disagree about what is and isn't moral." There are then four
possibilities: Jesus is wrong and Russell right, Russell is wrong and
Jesus right, they are both wrong, or the question is meaningless. His
premise is not sufficient to show that Jesus is immoral, unless he can
justify his moral principles. Which, as we have seen, he can't.
He is making an additional unstated and unjustifiable premise: that his
own will is what determines what is right and wrong, not only for him
but for everyone else. Therefore Russell's argument has failed before
it has even begun.

So what are the grounds that Russell puts forward for Jesus' supposed
immorality? He mentions three things.

Jesus believed in the existence of hell. This was to Russell his main
objection, and it strikes me as a curious one. If hell exists, then
to disbelieve in it is surely immoral. Firstly because the belief
would be false and thus anything you spoke people on the subject
would drive people away from the truth. Secondly because you will
not act to help people avoid hell. The immoral thing would be to
desire for people to go to hell, and in this Jesus is surely the
most innocent of all: his whole life (if Christianity is true) was
devoted to providing the only
means by which anybody may be rescued from hell, and to ensure that
as many as possible were so rescued.

So what is hell? First of all, we should ask what is heaven? Heaven
is the Kingdom which God seeks to establish; where everybody is
perfect, and open to only those who are morally perfect. That's the
reason why a chasm exists between heaven and hell. As soon as an
evil person, or even a slightly imperfect person, enters heaven,
it will cease to be heaven. Obviously
perfection is not something we can achieve by ourselves. I am not
saying that Christians are morally perfect. Far from it. I am saying
that nobody is morally perfect, and Christians just as bad (on
average) as everyone else. But the alternative to us achieving moral perfection
by our own standards is perfection being worked in us by the act of
someone else; and only God has the power and the moral perfection needed
to do that. Being Christian is about acknowledging our weaknesses, and
trusting and desiring God to remake us into what we ought to be, and
preserving us there.

Hell is for everyone else. It is eternal because existence is a good
in itself, and thus to cause people to cease to exist will be an even
greater evil than the suffering of hell (evil being simply the lack
of some good; non-existence the lack of every good). The people of
hell reject God, but without
God their anger, hatred and self-obsessiveness continually grow and
increase. Even though they might start out as decent people, without
what common grace exists in this world, they descend into greater and
greater evil in their character and natures. The natural consequence
of such evil is suffering, and so that is the outcome of the place;
not so much caused by God, but by the rejection of God by the people
of that place and the evil thoughts and deeds that flow from an
eternity of such rejection. Thus while their entrance into hell might
have resulted from a handful of evil deeds in this life, their
continued stay is caused by the eternal degradation of their
characters that results from an attitude of rebellion against God.
The suffering is eternal because the evil in their character is eternal.
They might try to become perfect enough for heaven, but their
futile attempts would just make their imperfections increase.

Hell is, in short, the natural end of a vicious character. God
could help them, if they wanted, but they don't want what that help
would entail for them: they want the relief from suffering, but not
the life of virtue and faith needed for heaven. Not understanding this,
their rage against God increases, and with this their evil, and with
that their suffering.

That, at least, is (a simplified form of) my take on the matter. If
it is right, then to deny the existence of hell is to take a long
stride down the road to dragging yourself and others to hell. The
only way to escape hell is to trust in the Truth, and to deny hell is
to trust in delusions. I do not want anyone to go to hell, but I
recognise that people's vice and pride will inexorably lead them
there, and, if I cannot persuade them to change course, there is
little that I or anyone else can do to stop that. At the same time,
I rejoice in justice; that those whose trust allows God to impute
and infuse his own righteousness in them are able to escape that fate.

Russell was thus plainly wrong. Jesus was good in part because He
believed in the existence of hell, while doing all He could to prevent
people from going there. Russell was evil in part because
he disbelieved in it, while doing all he could to guide people there.

Russell states that preaching hell is an evil because of the fear and
worry it has given people down the centuries. But why is this? Fear
is not always an evil. It is not wrong to fear a venomous snake;
the fear might well save our lives. Fear is only wrong if it is
directed to something which is not dangerous, and there the evil is
not the fear but the incorrect knowledge. Fear might provoke us into
wrong action, but then the evil is not the fear but the cowardice
which stops us from doing the right thing despite the fear. In any
case, a genuine fear of hell is not likely to lead us to do evil.
Fear of hell is only an evil if hell does not exist (although
obviously to desire goodness in itself is better than fear of hell).
Russell therefore assumes that hell does not exist. This is only
possible if Christianity is false. Therefore Russell's argument is
circular and invalid.

There was the instance of the Gadarene swine where it certainly was
not kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush
into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and could
have made the devils simply go away; but He chooses to send him into
the pigs.

This objection is based on a misreading of the passage. It was the
demons who asked to be allowed entry into the pigs; and it was the
demon possession, not Christ's command, that caused the pigs to run
into the lake. Men are
worth more than pigs, and Jesus' main concern was for the man. So
what was He to do? Let the demons wander the surface of the earth,
get bored, and decide to come back to their original home with a few
extra house-guests, leaving the state of the man even worse than
before (this is what Jesus Himself stated that he believed).
Annihilate the demons? But by depriving them of existence would also
be an evil; better to follow the original plan and let them live
as they desired apart from God's goodness, and enjoy the fruits of
their rebellion in hell. Thus one can very well argue that Jesus'
action here was the least possible evil.

Then there is the very curious story of the fig tree [which Jesus cursed
and it withered]. … This is a very curious story, because it was
not the right time for figs and you really could not blame the tree.

Again, it is difficult to fully assess this story with only the little
information we have in the gospels, either to condemn Jesus or condone
him. To judge whether Jesus' actions were good, we have to judge what
His motivations were, and whether those flowed from a good character,
and whether they were fulfilled by His action. Here we draw a blank.
The story appears in Matthew and Mark's gospels, with the only difference
between the two accounts being the timing: Matthew merges the two halves
of the story together, while Mark separates them, with other episodes
between them. This difference is down to the literary form of the
gospels; as classical biographies, their main purpose was to
promote a message about Jesus, and strict chronology was secondary to
the overall theme. Thus writers were expected to move events around
to have a continual flow of meaning. A strict chronology was not usual
in this type of writing, and the original readers would have understood
that.

The gospel account records that Jesus was hungry, and went to the
fig tree to find something to eat. His initial motivation was hunger.
But after that, we are left in the dark. Except, of course, it offered
to the disciples and those others who paid attention an important
lesson about Jesus' authority, and power. If Jesus' intention was to
demonstrate that authority, then the means of doing so was certainly
effective. The motivation would be to educate his disciples, and anyone
else who would pay attention; and education of truth is always good.
Thus the deed followed from a good motivation, and was effectively
carried out. In this sense it was a good deed. The evil done to the fig
tree has to be balanced against the good done to Jesus' disciples through
the demonstration. Men are worth more than fig trees.

Luke's gospel doesn't contain this story, but it does have a parable
which is relevant.

And he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard,
and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the
vinedresser, 'Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on
this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the
ground?' And he answered him, 'Sir, let it alone this year also, until
I dig around it and put on manure. Then if it should bear fruit next
year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.'"

Parables always require interpretation, and here is my attempt at
unpacking it. The man
represents God the Father, the fig tree humanity, and the vineyard
and the ground the tree is planted on this planet and the abundance of
good resources we have been blessed with.
The vinedresser represents Jesus, and the fruit good deeds arising from
the virtues, particularly from faith and agape love. The cutting down
of the
tree represents the last judgement and the end of human history.
The digging and manure represents
Jesus' life and work and the Holy Spirit, sanctifying humanity to
produce good fruit. The parable is basically a warning to mankind.
We have been given a great place to live in, but because of pride and
rebellion, we have not produced the works and character that God
desires. We have been given three chances so far, and have been granted
a fourth, but it will not last forever. We will not have an infinite
number of opportunities to abuse this planet and society; eventually,
if we go to far, we will be the seeds of the destruction of both the
environment we rely on and ourselves. We should not
be so arrogant to think that we could never be cut down. Why should we
enjoy this planet, if we are not worthy of it, and take up ground which
could be used to support something better than what we have made
ourselves?

A message of the fig tree outside Jerusalem is that what Jesus did to
that tree He can also do to us (not so much an active act of destruction,
but a passive withdrawal of the grace that sustains us); and if we don't
make good use of the
blessings given to us, then that is what he will do, and let a better
society take up this place we have been blessed with. It is both a
lesson about how the power of God can aid us, and a warning to us not
to forget that we ourselves rely on God to sustain us; and that grace
can be withdrawn at any moment.

Was Jesus' action evil? No, humanity is evil, and God is just. He
will give us warnings like the fig tree, but not indefinitely. Then he
will withdraw His protection which is the only thing preventing us from
creating the world that
our actions show that we desire and deserve to live in. Hell.

Was Jesus immoral? If you accept the premises that Russell built his
ethics on, then yes. If you accept the premises that Christian ethics is
built on, then most certainly no. What evidence does Russell have that
his ethical understanding is built on solid ground? He has to contend
with the naturalistic fallacy; and the Christians have already taken the
only two known ways to evade it. So Russell can't prove that Jesus is
immoral without relying on ethical premises which at best beg the question
and at worst are wholly false. So this part of his essay utterly fails.
He has not proved that Jesus wasn't an uniquely immoral man.

Some html formatting is supported,such as <b> ... <b> for bold text , < em>... < /em> for italics, and <blockquote> ... </blockquote> for a quotation
All fields are optional
Comments are generally unmoderated, and only represent the views of the person who posted them.
I reserve the right to delete or edit spam messages, obsene language,or personal attacks. However, that I do not delete such a message does not mean that
I approve of the content. It just means that I am a lazy little bugger who can't be bothered to police his own blog.